What Was Learned From the Trial of the Ontario SIU Versus the OPP
An ATV may have been struck by a police cruiser, but we cannot be certain. This is a view of a typical 2-seater ATV. The type of vehicle involved in the present incident is unknown, much like most facts about the case.
What we do know is that Provincial Constable Sean Coughlan was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) with respect to an alleged collision between his police cruiser and an ATV operated by Edward Labadie and the incident occurred on June 22, 2016. We also know that the same Constable was charged with perjury with respect to his response to the same incident. But that may be as far as anyone can go with any degree of confidence. Yes, there was one additional known fact: Constable Coughlan was found not guilty in a jury trial that was completed near the end of May, 2018.
Despite the fact that a lone reporter was available to cover and report on the trial in Sarnia, we know nothing about where the incident occurred other than that it occurred on a rural Lambton County Road. We know nothing about what kind of ATV was involved. We know nothing about what type of police cruiser was involved.
Experts from the SIU and from the OPP both testified at trial. It would appear that the primary objective evidence was with respect to an imprint near the front bumper of the police cruiser that was astoundingly similar to the match of a wheel of the ATV; or so the SIU expert believed. But another expert defending the police Constable indicated that there was no such match since the evidence should have looked different than it did. The SIU were never able to examine the police cruiser until several weeks after the incident. And the OPP police supervisor who examined the incident used a professional “BS smell test” to determine whether the evidence sounded “smelly” and then did not ensure that any photographs of the police cruiser were taken so objective evidence could be made available after the fact.
In all, whether the Constable was truly innocent of any mischief will be irrelevant. The actions of those surrounding the incident, whether from the SIU or from the OPP, were so inappropriate, or reported so, that no one reading the news media reports of the trial could feel confident that anything resembling the truth was resolved. If members of the public wanted to review the actual transcripts of the trial they would have to pay hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to the transcribers – a private business that must make money from such transactions. But no one would consider that such transparency is an important component of our democracy and should be made available.
No one can be realistically comfortable when the SIU cannot examine evidence until several weeks after an occurrence. No one can be reasonably comfortable when the SIU expert giving testimony has not been publically identified in any manner as to his expertise in such matters. But this is typical of the secrecy behind the operations and staffing of the SIU.
Still, no one can be comfortable when an explanation has not been provided why the OPP did not take photographs of the police cruiser when the Supervisor knew that the SIU was likely to be involved. No one can be comfortable when there was no explanation why witnesses who testified that the police cruiser was directly behind the ATV and that this information was passed onto the OPP Supervisor but nothing was indicated as to what the Supervisor did with that information.
In all, the proceedings demonstrate the lack of professionalism, truthfulness and discipline that the public should expect but do not receive. The old adage that “justice must be seen to be done…” is not just a cute little saying, but then again, maybe it is.
Gorski Consulting Receives New Face-Lift
Much like this photo from a very old investigation, Gorski Consulting has decided that old things need to change. So we are working on a new look.
As visitors may have already realized the Gorski Consulting website is receiving some format changes. Some testing and experimentation is in the works to make sure we are happy with the new look. “Stay tuned”.
YET ANOTHER POSSIBLE VEHICLE-RELATED DROWNING WEST OF ORANGEVILLE
While scant information is available news media report that a vehicle entered the Grand River west of Orangeville and a child occupant of the submerged vehicle is missing.
Just after posting the news item below regarding the drowning near Jarvis, Ontario, news media are now reporting that a vehicle entered the Grand River near Grand Valley, about 20 kilometres west of Orangeville, Ontario where it has been found submerged. A female driver of the vehicle managed to escape however news media are indicating that a child occupant of the vehicle is missing. The vehicle was reportedly swept several kilometres downstream, presumably south, from where it entered. Efforts will now be made to withdraw the vehicle from the river.
Again, the question remains, how did the vehicle come to enter the water? Police are quoted as saying the driver entered onto a closed road and then subsequently entered the water but that says very little. Which road was closed? How was it closed? Was it something where sufficient information was not provided to the driver and a misunderstanding occurred? Where precisely did this entering of the water occur? As per past experience these are important questions that are unlikely to see the light of day.
UPDATE: February 23, 2018; 0900 hours
Further details have been revealed in the last couple of days however majors issues still remain unanswered.
In earlier reports the incident reportedly occurred at 0215 hours however several news agencies reported it occurred at 0100 hours on February 21, 2018. The site where the van entered into the Grand River was reported to be “near 10th Line and Henry Street. It was reported that the van was swept down the river for several kilometres.
In a CP24 News article of 1403 hours of February 21st it was reported that the incident occurred at precisely 0053 hours when a witness saw the headlights of a vehicle bobbing and pointing upward out of the Grand River. A female driver and a 3-year-old child had occupied the vehicle. Constable Paul Nancekivell was quoted as saying “She managed to free herself right away and then the van was swept away moments later”. At approximately 0930 hours a van was reportedly located stuck in the middle of the Grand River however due the fast running water and large ice flows it was determined unsafe for rescuers to reach the vehicle and a cable was attached to it to prevent its further travel down the river. The location of the van was described as “under a bridge in between the 9th Line and 10th Line”.
In a further update by CP24 News at 2018 hours of February 21st, it was reported that a 3-year-old boy was missing as he was swept away from his mother’s grip after their minivan entered the river. The time of the incident was confirmed by police as 0053 hours. Police indicated that the female driver drove past a road block adjacent to the river where water was rushing over top of the road. The van was then swept into the river. Police indicated that the driver was about to exit the van with her son when “the boy was swept away from her grip down the river”. The van was found further downstream and secured with cables. Rescuers were in the process of searching for the boy.
Visibility at the time of the incident was reported to be extremely poor such that “You couldn’t see past the hood of your vehicle”.
There was still no specific information about the location where the van was swept away from the road and where it was found.
In a Hamilton Spectator newspaper article Grand Valley District Chief Kevin McNeilly was quoted as saying that the weather conditions were “treacherous” at the time the mother and son were swept away. It was extremely foggy and at one point the river rose three feet in a matter of 20 minutes.
In a CP24 News article at 0834 hours of February 22nd it was confirmed that the van had already been pulled out of the water however its exact location was still not provided.
In a Toronto Star newspaper article the young boy was identified as Kaden Young and his mother, Michelle Hanson was the driver of the van. Some indication of the location was provided in the phrase “Firefighters found Hanson, hypothermic, at a watery alcove on the river’s bank”. While this information is exceeding scant, at least it refers to an alcove.
In an article published by CBC News at 0919 hours of February 22nd, some specifics were provided. It indicated that the mother drove past a road closure sign and it was foggy at the time but police opined that she knew the sign was there.
In an article published by CJOY, Constable Nancekivell was quoted as saying that Michell Hanson had been “driving southbound down 10th Line and failed to stop at the road closure that had been in place. The woman drove into heavy water and when she tried to back up, the van was swept into the Grand River”. Hanson reportedly pulled her son from the van after it was swept into the river but lost her grip. She managed to pull herself onto the bank of the river but the van was swept seven kilometres down river and got stuck in some silt. Hanson was reported to live in the area.
In a Hamilton Spectator newspaper article of 0544 hours, February 22nd, the authors indicated that Hanson “accidentally missed a road-closure sign”, suggesting that she did not do so deliberately as suggested by Constable Nancekivell. The article also quoted Hanson’s family members who stated that Hanson did not see the road-closure sign due to dark and foggy conditions. Fire Chief Kevin McNeilly was quoted to say that his firefighters initially responded to a call about a motor vehicle collision just before 1 a.m. but, while on route, they were notified that a vehicle had gone into the river. If there was a second incident involving an accident it has not been reported by any other agencies. A rescue vehicle was sent to the Dufferin County Road 109 bridge where they heard Hanson’s calls for help.
This would imply that the van must have been carried past the Cty Rd 109 bridge if Hanson was not carried with the van. However it is possible that she also might have been carried downstream for some distance or that perhaps she moved down stream of her own volition. Yet the article indicated the van was found “upstream” where it was secured. This is rather confusing as it would suggest that Hanson was carried downstream, to the south, past the van which was found upstream, or north of her location at the Cty Rd 109 bridge.
Examination of the photos showing the van’s location one can observe a utility pole sticking out of the water and comparing this to images on GoogleMaps suggests that the pole in question was located on the north edge of the the bridge of Cty Rd 109, although we cannot be absolutely certain. A further examination of the GoogleMaps data suggests that the distance from the Cty Rd 109 bridge northward to the hamlet of Waledmar is slightly more than 1 kilometre and, if the van was swept along the river for seven kilometres as indicated by news media this does not make sense. Further analysis indicates that the distance northward from the Cty Rd 109 bridge to the point where the 10th Line crosses the Grand River is only 2.3 kilometres thus this is also far short of the seven kilometres that was quoted in the CJOY article. None of this confusion has been clarified.
Having examined further news media photos it is our opinion that the van was swept away from the road at a bend in the 10th Line located 1.5 kilometres north of the Cty Rd 109 bridge. This is a location just a few hundred metres north of Henry Street in the hamlet of Waledmar. In our opinion the van was likely stopped at the Cty Rd 109 bridge where Ms. Hanson was also found. At least this is the best interpretation that can be made based on the confusing information that has been reported. In fact the those reporting the incident could not have made this information any more confusing nor as if there was a purposeful attempt to preventing anyone from knowing the precise manner in which this incident unfolded.
There is an obvious conflict with respect to what happened as Ms. Hanson approached the wash out and why she passed through the reported road closure. If the water at the site had been rising as quickly as 3 feet per every 20 minutes it is not difficult to imagine that an initial placement of a road closure barricade could be overwhelmed by the rising water. The barricade could be partially submerged or even knocked over, as has been witnessed on a number of previous occasions on any roadway. If there was an actual trailer with some mass to it then that interference could be less likely. If a barricade remained standing then, even in dense fog, it would be difficult to image that Ms. Hanson could not have detected it if it was properly placed a cross the majority of the road width. Granted, with the lack of visibility she might be expected to drive into the barrier but it is difficult to believe she would not actually detect its presence. So what were the actual conditions at the road closure. There have no questions or answers provided on this important issue. As typical there a substantial outpouring of grief and emotion which is detracting form the important quest to reveal how and why this innocent boy likely came to his death.
Ultimately the revelation of how this came about is a societal issue, not a personal one, as we must all be responsible for ensuring that no one dies from unknown reasons by the actions of unknown persons.
Mis-Information Continues To Be Spread With Respect to Tesla Auto-Pilot Crash in Utah
News media have reported that the Tesla that drove into the back of a stopped fire truck in South Jordan (Salt Lake City) Utah on Friday May 11, 2018 had the semi-autonomous Autopilot engaged. In fact this conclusion is based on the driver’s own statement to police. While it may prove to be true there are many instances where drivers may say all kinds of things in order to protect themselves. The best source of such a conclusion would be the Tesla’s event data recorder and not what the driver may have stated.
South Jordan police have been quoted as stating that the Tesla was travelling at 97 km/h when it slammed into the back of the stopped fire truck and that that the female driver of the Tesla only sustained a broken ankle. It has been reported that a Twitter comment by Tesla’s co-founder, Elon Musk, indicated “What’s actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60 mph and the driver only broke an ankle…an impact of that speed usually results in severe injury or death”.
This is precisely the point that Gorski Consulting made in our news item of May 14th, 2018, only we questioned the police conclusions. The photograph of the damage to the front end of the Telsa did not match what the police have concluded. The police conclusions would suggest that the Telsa sustained a change-in-velocity (Delta-V) of close to 100 km/h because the fire truck would act as a moveable barrier that would result in limited post-impact motion. Such as massive change-in-velocity is not demonstrated in the relatively small amount of dissipated energy exhibited in the visible amount of crush shown in the photograph of the Tesla.
If the fire truck was stopped then the only chance of matching the police conclusions would be if that fire truck was not in gear and was pushed forward on rolling wheels thus contributing to some of the energy loss from the collision by allowing some additional post-impact motion of both vehicles. But even that possibility remains highly unlikely as severe crush should still exist on the Tesla. Obviously, the situation could be more plausible if the fire truck was actually travelling at a substantial forward velocity when the impact occurred such that the closing speed was much less than what has been assumed.
Suspicious Facts Reported in Tesla Crash of South Jordan Utah
This police photo of the crashed Tesla does not show sufficient frontal crush to match its reported speed loss of almost 60 mph (100 km/h).
It has been reported that on Friday, May 11, 2018, a Tesla Model S sedan crashed into the back of stopped fire truck at a speed of 60 mph (100 km/h) in South Jordan Utah. The driver of the Tesla, or its semi-autonomous system, did not apply any braking prior to the impact and the driver only suffered a broken right ankle.
The above photo of the crashed Tesla was released by South Jordan police. This photo shows that crush to the vehicle was mainly above its bumper in a typical “under-ride” manner that would not be unexpected given the typical higher rear bumper of a large truck. The front wheels of the Tesla do not appear to have been displaced rearward and the A-pillars also appear to be in their original positions. All these facts support the conclusion that the Tesla’s crush does not exhibit the type of expected energy dissipation that would be comparable to a change-in-velocity (Delta-V) anywhere close to 60 mph (100 km/h).
Ever since the published research paper by Kenneth Campbell in 1974 comparing change-in-speed and vehicle crush there has been a lot of “crush measuring” in the field by various collision investigators/reconstructionists. In fact, computer reconstruction programs such as CRASH were developed for the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the specific purpose of objectively estimating the severity of a crash through the measurement of vehicle crush. So those who are familiar with those procedures know that the stiffness of most light-duty vehicles is much less in the vertical zone above the bumper than it is at the bumper level. Thus the crush shown in the Tesla would be much less had it involved contact with its bumper where the stiff structure is located.
It is true that under-ride collisions such as that shown in the above Tesla photo result in an under-estimation of the speed loss because the impact force is not horizontal but there is a vertical component which tends to lift the taller struck vehicle (i.e. the fire truck) while pushing the striking vehicle into the pavement. Furthermore some speed will be lost from post-impact motion of the vehicles, yet it is unlikely that the post-impact travel distances would be substantial in that the fire truck would act like a massive, movable barrier due to the large difference in the masses of each vehicle. While these factors are known they cannot explain the very large difference in the visible crush and the reported speed loss of close to 60 mph.
The unusually large interest in this crash is due to the possibility that its auto-pilot mode may have been activated and therefore this could suggest that the system failed to apply braking when it would be expected to do so. The present information indicates that it is unknown at this time whether that system was indeed activated.
From a collision reconstruction viewpoint, the use of event data from downloading of data from a recorder is becoming increasing common such that many investigators and analysts are becoming exclusively dependent on such data when completing their conclusions about how a collision occurred. Whatever the eventual circumstances in the present collision, it demonstrates the importance of investigators/analysts knowing their physical evidence and being able to use that knowledge of the physical evidence to independently detect possible discrepancies that may exist in downloaded event data. This comment is not just with respect to the physical evidence visible in vehicle damage, but relates to all the evidence on the roadway and with respect to the expected performance of the human behind the wheel.
Recent court appearances in the Province of Ontario demonstrate that many courts appear oblivious to the wide range of knowledge that a collision reconstructionist must have, and must evaluate in order to narrow possible causes to one or select few.
You must be logged in to post a comment.